“I have used the laws of this country just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetera….

…I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it’s time America was run like a business.”

–Donald Trump, who filed for bankruptcy four times

$$$$$$

That makes sense. Big Businesses, like Trump’s, exploit multitudes of common people for their labor, and vacuum up their cash for the private benefit of a few large stockholders and elite executives. That is Capitalism, and it is good.

–Leona Helmsley, NYC Real Estate & Hotel Mogul, who was jailed in 1992 for tax evasion and business fraud.

“It makes me smart.”

–Donald Trump, on not paying any taxes. He was elected President of the United States in 2016.

Leona Helmsley, “The Queen of Mean”, was successfully prosecuted by then U.S. Attorney (and now Trump sycophant) Rudy Giuliani for income tax evasion and fraudulent business practices. She reported to prison on April 15, 1992, the day personal taxes fall due. Prisoner No.15113-054, estimated net worth over five billion dollars, served nineteen months in federal prison. Upon release she had to sell all her NY hotels, most of which sold drinks, because New York law does not allow convicted felons to hold liquor licenses.

At the same time Donald Trump was building his real estate and hotel empire in New York and beyond, allegedly committing many of the same heinous acts that sent Helmsley to jail. Now he is the leader of the free world.

Short of dying in office, there are three ways an American president can cease to be one before his or her term is up: 1) Article I, Section 2-Impeachment, 2) Amendment 25, Section 4-Declaration of Incapacity, and 3) Common Law-Resignation. Only one of these—resignation—has ever actually occurred. Each has grave consequences for the republic, but they are different.

1) ARTICLE I: Impeachment

The most frequently discussed means of removing a president is impeachment. The constitution provides for impeachment only in the case of “Treason, Bribery, of other high Crimes or Misdemeanors.” Only the House of Representatives can bring an impeachment resolution, which requires a simple majority to pass. Any member of the House can introduce an impeachment resolution, which is then referred to an ad hoc committee to work out the details. More often in modern times the House Judiciary Committee itself initiates an impeachment resolution, and drafts recommendations for the floor of the House. Until recently, the Attorney General could appoint an independent Special Prosecutor with the power to recommend impeachment directly to the House, but the legislation that empowered that was allowed to expire after the Clinton impeachment, out of concern for the political effect of imbuing an individual who was not elected with such signal power. If the House passes an impeachment resolution, then the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of “managers” to prosecute the accused in the trial that follows. Only upon conviction at this trial is the impeached person stripped of his office.

Impeachments are tried before the Senate. When the defendant is the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides and serves as judge. A panel of “managers” appointed by the House on the recommendation of its Judiciary Committee prosecutes the case against the accused, and the entire Senate serves as a jury. A two-thirds majority of senators present is necessary to convict.

Once convicted, the offender is immediately removed from office. In the case of the president, the vice president assumes the higher office, and the vice presidency remains vacant. Ouster from office is the only sentence the Senate can confer. Article I provides that “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

The provision for impeachment is intentionally Byzantine. Over time it has become even more so, growing into equal parts constitutional law, politics, and pageantry. The framers did not intend for impeachment to be easy or routine. In all of U.S. history only two presidents have been impeached by the House—Andrew Johnson (1861) and Bill Clinton (1988)—and neither was convicted in the Senate. A bill of impeachment was introduced in the House against John Tyler in 1841, but it did not pass. Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 with impeachment resolutions pending; his resignation rendered them moot.

During America’s first two centuries, the constitutional provision for impeaching a president was invoked only once—against Andrew Johnson–in the turbulent, polarized circumstances immediately following the Civil War. In modern times, the country has seriously considered it three times in fewer than fifty rears—against Nixon, Clinton, and Trump. It has never succeeded in removing a president from office. Are we in danger of reducing impeachment to a routine political tool?

25th AMENDMENT: Incapacity

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution provides for the succession of presidential power in the event of the death, resignation, or incapacity of the President:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The wording of this clause, particularly as it relates to incapacity, introduced ambiguities that the founders did not foresee. When William Henry Harrison died in office, his powers and duties devolved onto Vice President John Tyler. Tyler took more, though. He declared that not only the powers and duties, but also the office itself, was now his. At the suggestion of Daniel Webster, he took the Presidential Oath of Office as prescribed by the Constitution. Since then every vice president who has succeeded a fallen president has taken the oath, following the Tyler Precedent.

Despite criticism at the time, he claimed to be President, rather than merely Acting President. This was an important distinction, because the constitution provided for only one president, who had to be elected. If a Vice President succeeded a President with a temporary disability, the he became President and finished out the term. The previous president was gone, even if he recovered from his incapacity. The vice presidency remained vacant.

Garfield’s deathbed

When President Garfield lingered after being shot, Vice President Arthur declined to assume the presidency while Garfield lived. Similarly Vice President Marshall demurred when Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated, but not killed, by a stroke. Neither wanted to bear the mantle of the Tyler Precedent while a president lived who might recover.

In 1945, Franklin Roosevelt’s health began to rapidly decline, and Vice President Truman feared he might have to face a similar decision involving one of the nation’s most revered presidents. A cerebral hemorrhage ended FDR’s life before Truman faced such a crisis. He never forgot, though, and unsuccessfully pushed for a constitutional amendment on succession. Eisenhower had two heart attacks while in office, but did not die.

In 1965, following the assassination of John Kennedy, Congress finally adopted the text of the 25th Amendment. By May of 1967, it was ratified by 47 state legislatures.

Section 4 of the Amendment deals with the involuntary removal of a president who has become incapacitated in the judgement of his colleagues. It reads:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

A simple majority of the Cabinet, or “such other body as Congress may by law provide” (although it never has), can empower the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, acting together, to relieve the President of his powers. The President can resume the power simply by declaring himself fit to do so. The Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses taken within 21 days, can take them way again. It is not specified how often this cycle can be repeated.

This process does not remove the president from office. Rather it transfers the powers and responsibilities of the office to the Vice President, who becomes Acting President, an office not defined in the constitution. The door is left open for the President to reassume his duties if circumstances change. Since he is still President, presumably his term limits clock continues to run.

Was Reagan impaired in Office?

The Section 4 process has never been invoked. The Framers of the Amendment apparently had in mind a physical incapacity like Garfield’s wound or Wilson’s stroke, where it would be a useful tool. Invoked against a vigorous but allegedly demented president, the results might be unpredictable. It could conceivably paralyze the executive and legislative branches for the remainder of that president’s term in office. The potential constitutional precedents of using this clause for alleged mental defects are terrifying,

3: EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL: Resignation

The Constitution refers to the resignation of a president, but only one, Richard Nixon, has actually done it. How that was engineered is instructive.

Nixon was a flawed human being, ambitious and bullying, with questionable ethics, but he had greatness in him His first run for national office, as Eisenhower’s running mate, was tainted with allegations of corruption that dogged him throughout his subsequent career. Along the way, he acquired the sobriquet “Tricky Dick”.

Nixon’s achievements on the national level were real, however, and substantial, especially in foreign affairs. As Vice President, his “Kitchen Debate” with Nikita Khrushchev is remembered more than half a century later. As President, he signed two substantial arms control treaties, and opened the era of “peaceful coexistence” with the USSR. He supported Israel through the Yom Kippur War. He opened trade and cultural exchanges with China and the Middle East, and weakened Soviet hegemony there. He signed the Paris Accords that ended US involvement in the Viet Nam War and led to the suspension of the draft.

During his campaign for election to a second term, though, Nixon’s ethics came again to haunt him. Agents of his campaign organization (which he called CRP but reporters named CREEP-the Committee to RE-Elect the President) was allegedly caught breaking into the opposing party’s headquarters in the Watergate Hotel to steal data and plant surveillance devices. Nixon denied any knowledge of that activity, and it was never established whether he knew of the burglary beforehand.

Subsequent evidence clearly showed, though, that he had led a frantic effort to prevent any knowledge of the break-in from reaching the public. Surreptitious recordings Nixon had made of his White House conversations, laced with obscenity (“[expletive deleted]”), showed a clearly unravelling president, bullying his aides into ethically questionable acts to protect his crumbling reputation.

Archibald Cox was appointed as Special Prosecutor to investigate the matter, only to be fired by Nixon when he got too close. Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and his deputy William Ruckelshaus, then resigned out of conscience. The event came to be known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.”

A new Special Prosecutor was named. Congressional committees took up the cudgel and held a series of hearings, some televised and some closed. Popular demonstrations erupted across the nation, where the word impeachment became increasingly common in chants and on placards. The pressure on the president was immense. “I have reason to suspect,” wrote Senator Barry Goldwater, “that all might not be well mentally in the White House.”

Nixon’s defense strategy was to act presidential, preferably on TV. In one unfortunate effort, a haggard Nixon assured Americans that “I am not a crook!” He was at his most presidential when seen in his role as a statesman. He therefore embarked on a series of overseas trips, with a posse of reporters and photographers, to the Middle East and the USSR. One result of all this jet travel was a case of phlebitis that sidelined him for weeks.

Meanwhile, the investigation ground on. Televised hearings and the publication of transcripts of the White House tapes whipped the public to frenzy. Eventually the Judiciary Committee voted to send three articles of impeachment to the House floor, for 1) obstruction of justice, 2) abuse of power, and 3) contempt of Congress. All were based on the cover-up. Nixon’s direct involvement in the Watergate burglary has never been established.

With the votes in both the House and Senate trending strongly against him, Nixon knew the jig was up. If he was impeached he would very likely be convicted, and his place in history would be to be the only president ever convicted after impeachment. If he cut his losses by leaving office before impeachment, he might still preserve some of the positive legacy he had worked a lifetime to achieve. It was a Corleonean offer that he could not refuse. Nixon resigned.

A big advantage of the engineered resignation is that it does not directly set any constitutional precedents. A disadvantage is that it is clumsy, has to be tailored to each situation, and is very susceptible to politics. Finding that Godfather deal may be difficult, and a bold, principled office-holder may be resistant to the approach.

The Situation We Are In Now

Impeachment has been tried but never worked. Declaring incapacity has never been attempted, and a vigorous, feisty executive does not seem like the person on which to try out this process for he first time. Inducing a resignation seems like the path most likely to succeed and least likely to result in harmful precedent.

Consider President Trump. He has not dedicated his life to statesmanship or politics, and his sense of legacy is not invested in his public works. He can walk away without feeling diminished, blaming others for obstructing his attempts.

He has dedicated his life to wealth and power, and to Trump as a brand. Threatening that would surely give him pause.

Suppose the emoluments clause were invoked to require him to actually divest all interest in, and knowledge of the operations of, the Trump Organization; to require it to change its name to something that does not exploit the presidential connection; and to cease all contact with the principals of the Organization, whether family or not. Rather than submit to such rigorous ethics and constitutional constraints, would he resign? Perhaps.

Keep Eyes on the Prize

The biggest risk in all this talk of impeachment is that it will distract us from the real task at hand. Our country went astray before Trump was elected. In fact, he was elected in large part because voters saw his lack of political experience as an asset, in sharp contrast to pro politicians who opposed him in the primaries, and his dynastic opponent in the general election, whom many voters felt belonged to a professional political elite that was responsible for the morass that Washington has become. We overlooked his obvious shortcomings and underestimated the hucksterism that he, to his credit, made no effort to conceal, because we wanted to change Washington and correct the social inequities that plutocracy was producing. We believed him when he said he was going to “drain the swamp.” We voted for something new, and we got it, but it turned out to be something very different from what we longed for.

“This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.” –Donald Trump

Freeing the White House from its current occupant will not free the country from the coalition of ideologues, starry-eyes hopefuls, foreign operatives, and nincompoops who put him there. Replacement of the president is only a tool in the central task of rebuilding America as a nation of principle, vision and hope. To do this we must begin respecting one another again, listening and compromising for the benefit of majority and minority alike, and forsaking the tyranny of a narrow but iron-willed majority. We must learn not just to tolerate, not just to respect, but to revere our diversity for the richness and strength it bestows on us. We must wrest power from the plutocrats and restore it to an inclusive electorate. We must build bridges that bring us together, not walls that keep us apart. We must embrace and reinvigorate Lincoln’s ideal, that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Compared to that real task lying before us, simply removing a president from office seems like a walk in the park.

Donald Trump did not invent the tweet, nor the political tweet. Not even the presidential tweet. The art of the epigram, or tweet, has been around for centuries, and many masters have come and gone. Consider this gem, tweeted fully half a millenium ago, which practically defines the genre:

The history of the tweet goes way farther back than that. Over a millennium earlier, another gifted twittermeister had a nearly identical thought:

Nor is this the oldest surviving tweet. This one comes from two centuries earlier:

The turn of the 18th century was a fruitful time for the tweet. Alexander Pope’s long poems barely survive, but the tweets he set like jewels within them continue to gleam . I know you’ve heard this one:

and this one, which might have been a DM to President Trump:

Trump may have passed on the inspirational tweets of Pope, preferring the acerbic wit of Pope’s contemporary, Jonathan Swift. If this tweet had been written in he first person singular, it might have come from Trump himself:

Although all of Swift’s wisdom might not be welcome:

These tweets ushered in the Age of Enlightenment, which may have brought us the greatest tweeter of all time:

Franklin may not have invented the political tweet, but he certainly perfected it. His advice to American patriots is remembered long after the war ended.

He could be a lot more pointed, too. This one foreshadows John C. Calhoun’s warnings, fifty years later, about the tyranny of the majority.

The presidential tweet was a natural follower of the political tweet. It first reached full flower in the hands of a master—President Abraham Lincoln.

Both Roosevelts had the knack, too. Theodore Roosevelt, who actually made his living as a best-selling author both before and after his presidency, had this advice to the common man:

This advice, intended for presidents but widely applicable, is perhaps TRs most successful tweet:

The mid 20th century brought a virtual golden age of the political tweet, including the presidential tweet:

Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat, and his tweets sometimes seem to address the 21st century GOP, enhancing his status as a political clairvoyant:

And there is this DM to Paul Ryan from both Roosevelts:

Other memorable 20th century presidential tweets include Truman’s about where the buck stops, Eisenhower’s to beware the military-industrial complex, and Kennedy’s plea to ask not what your country can do…etc. Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, was a master of the presidential tweet.

Even into the twenty first century, the presidential tweet flourished. The homespun, self-deprecating humor that sometimes bubbled up in presidential tweets from Lincoln to Reagan became a dominant theme in the opening decades.

In 2016 the nature of the presidential tweet changed. Previous presidents used Tweets to communicate directly with their constituents, humanizing their images. The humor let us see brief glimpses into the hearts of the men who occupied the Oval Office. Policy and fact did not enter into most of these tweets; this would have not been consistent with their intimate purpose.

Donald Trump has changed all that. He seems oddly unwilling, or unable, to relate to people on a human level. His tweets seem aimed at manipulation rather than revelation. They are seldom humorous, except for a ubiquitous, smarmy sarcasm, and they never self-deprecating. They are chockablock full of “alternative facts” unencumbered by even a hint of proof. This made up data is often used to defend nasty attacks on people and institutions that without them would have no foundation at all.

They are sometimes laced with a creepy paranoia which feels particularly out of place in a President of the United States and Commander in Chief.

Perhaps saddest of all, the literary quality of these neo-epigrams vanished when their purpose became propaganda. I know that this has no significance in the grand political scheme of things. The epigram—the tweet—has been an art form for millennia; I hate to see it go. In the end, cultures are remembered by the art they leave behind, often in the remains of practical objects: shards of pottery, battered cutlery, bits of personal adornment. If artificial intelligence ever scans the autistic, ADD-riven snippets of our government today, they will surely conclude that there were virtual Visigoths at our cybergate.

Andrew Jackson & Donald Trump Redux

Earlier this week President Donald Trump laid a wreath on the grave of former president Andrew Jackson. The forty fifth president has advertised his admiration for the seventh one on many previous occasions. Jackson’s portrait hangs in Trump’s Oval Office.

Small wonder that Trump reveres Jackson. Nicknamed “Old Hickory” for his tough and unbending character, he is widely held to have been a political disruptor, a long haired fiery badass from the boondocks, who ended the hegemony of the overly philosophical, effete founding fathers who hailed from the staid east coast. In this view, he returned the country to “the people” who had fought and died to forge it in the fires of revolution. His passion for the common people, it has been said, created America as we know it today.

There was much more to Jackson, though. He was opinionated, temperamental, and had a volatile temper. A contemporary described him thus:

General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority; but when he feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the pursuit of the objects which the community approves or of those which it does not regard with jealousy. Supported by a power that his predecessors never had, he tramples on his personal enemies, whenever they cross his path, with a facility without example; he takes upon himself the responsibility of measures that no one before him would have ventured to attempt. He even treats the national representatives with a disdain approaching to insult; he puts his veto on the laws of Congress and frequently neglects even to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes treats his master roughly.

–Alexis deTocqueville, Democracy in America

Former president Thomas Jefferson addressed his concerns about the possibility of a Jackson presidency to then Rep.Daniel Webster during the 1824 Adams/Jackson campaign:

I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws and constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate, he was Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are, no doubt, cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man.

John Quincy Adams could not share in the flamboyant hairstyles of his day.

Jackson engaged in dueling, gambling, and sexual scandal during his public career. He was a rhetorical bully who was not above making up facts, or at least stretching the truth beyond the breaking point. He accused John Quincy Adams of using public funds to buy gambling equipment for the White House, when he had actually bought only a chessboard and a pool table, using private funds. He accused Adams of procuring American women of dubious virtue for the court of the Tsar Alexander I of Russia, in order to gain diplomatic favor while he was ambassador there.

Henry Clay on a bad hair day

After his first presidential bid in 1824, Jackson blamed his loss to Adams (settled in the House because none of the four candidates had won a majority) on a “corrupt bargain” with Speaker of the House Henry Clay, whom Adams then appointed as Secretary of State, the very post that Adams himself held before the election. This led to a four-year campaign of vituperation and rabble-rousing that culminated in a decisive electoral victory for Jackson over Adams in 1828. It also kindled a bitter political rivalry that would follow both men throughout their careers.

On taking office as president, Jackson fired scores of federal workers, from Washington lifers to remote territorial postmasters, and replaced them with Jackson loyalists. In those simpler times, he was actually able to deconstruct the administrative state, even before it had a name. There was a “we won, you lost, so just get over it” quality to his presidency, especially early on, that has a remarkably modern and familiar ring.

He was unabashedly, aggressively racist. A wealthy planter and slave owner, he once offered a $50 reward for the return of a runaway slave, and “and $10 extra for every 100 lashes any person will give him, to the amount of 300 dollars” prior to his return. Do the math: Jackson was offering to pay for three thousand lashes, without even a nod towards due process, to punish this man he accused stealing his own freedom.

Jackson’s exploits as an Indian fighter were legendary; he vowed to “exterminate” the Creeks, and nearly did. By one account, the Tallapoosa River literally ran red with the blood of the native born—warriors, women and children alike—who tried to flee across it from Jackson’s army.

Among the first achievements of Jackson’s presidency was the passage of the Indian Removal Act, which culminated in the forcible expulsion of all Cherokees from the southeastern US , on foot or in travois and wagons across the trackless frontier, to semi-arid territories west of the Mississippi. This act of ethnic cleansing resulted in the Trail of Tears, along which more than 4000 aboriginal men, women, and children died of starvation and exposure. “I feel conscious of having done my duty to my red children.”Jackson wrote, taking patronization literally. “If any failure of my good intention arises, it will be attributable to their want of duty to themselves, not to me.”

Trained as a frontier lawyer, Jackson had an an odd view of the separation of powers built into the constitution. He held that the legislative, executive and judicial branches should operate completely independently of one another, considering the action of another branch only to the extent that they agreed with it.

“The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges,” Jackson wrote, and that “the President is independent of both.” He concluded that “the authority of the Supreme Court must not…be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities .” Jackson believed that the president need afford the courts only “such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.” When Chief Justice John Marshall’s Supreme Court ruled that the State of Georgia had no right to abrogate the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation, Jackson simply ignored the Court, and began the Indian Removal anyway.

Jackson was fond of the executive order and the veto. During his two terms of office he vetoed more bills than all six previous presidents combined. Some of these had lasting consequences.

Congress established the Second Bank of the United States under President James Madison to help restore a national economy devastated by the War of 1812. It was modeled after the first BUS, set up by Alexander Hamilton. Jackson considered it “the Devil’s bank”—a corrupt monopoly designed to enrich its private stockholders, many of whom were foreigners, at the expense of the common people. When Congress considered the renewal of the bank’s charter in 1932, both houses passed it handily, only to see it vetoed by President Jackson. To be sure he had killed it (and out of spite towards Henry Clay, a BUS supporter), he used executive power to withdraw all federal deposits from the bank, without which it withered away. Jackson was censured by Congress for these actions, but the rebuke had no effect. During the proceedings he compared Henry Clay to”a drunken man in a brothel”

Young Jackson defies a British officer

Jackson loved a good war. At age 13, he served as a courier during the Revolutionary War until he was captured and became a prisoner of the British; all his life he bore the scars where a British officer had slashed his face and hands for refusing to clean the officer’s boots.

He earned his military chops commanding the Tennessee militia against Shawnee chief Tecumseh; Sam Houston and

Jackson Stamp of Approval

David Crockett served under him in this command. In 1815, both sides unaware that the War of 1812 had ended in 1814 under the treaty of Ghent, Jackson’s 5000 man army won a decisive victory over the British force that occupied New Orleans. Later he attacked the Seminole Indians in Florida, where he forcibly deposed the Spanish governor and served for nine months as military governor of the territory. During this time, he executed two Britons for abetting the Indians, and at least six volunteers for insufficient fealty to him.

As president, with the stated goal of freeing the government from the residual corruption of previous administrations, Jackson launched presidential investigations into all executive offices and departments. The result was a purge of many officers he deemed corrupt.

Sexual scandal invaded Jackson’s White House, as well. The Petticoat Affair involved the wife of Secretary of War John H. Eaton, who was accused of prostitution in her younger years while working in her father’s tavern. Jackson, seeing his cabinet threatened, roared to her defense, declaring her “chaste as a virgin,” and fixing the blame on the rumormongers themselves—fake news! Nevertheless, he fired nearly all his cabinet and reappointed a “Parlor Cabinet” of Washington notables for show, and a “Kitchen Cabinet” of trusted supporters for advice. He also bought the new Washington newspaper, The Globe, as an outlet for his own propaganda.

A quote from Henry Clay, an early comb-over

Among the three great influencers of political thought in early 19th century America, Jackson was alone in championing a strong president who governed by fiat. Henry Clay, known as “The Great Compromiser”, strove for consensus building, where, after good faith debate, final policies gave everybody something, and denied everybody something as well.

A quote from John C. Calhoun with his signature up-do.

John C. Calhoun favored a decentralized power where the states had the power to veto (“nullify”) specific principles of federal law with their borders. He believed in “concurrent majority” in which minorities can exercise a sort of veto power then their basic rights are infringed, a theory of governance among people similar to the principle of nullification among states. It is diametrically opposed to Jackson’s “numerical majority.” For a concurrent majority to prevail, consensus was required as a means of avoiding the “tyranny of the majority.”

A tweet from Andrew Jackson, who shared a stylist with Calhoun.

It is easy to see why Donald Trump favors Andrew Jackson, though I fear it is for the wrong reasons. His fiery temper and fierce, heartless command mirror Donald’s own temperament, and Jackson’s arrogant need for iron control over his advisers, his politics, and even the facts, must ring true to Mr. Trump. He was a rich man who justified his vast powers with a claim of an almost mythic connection with “the People.”

A prescient tweet from Daniel Webster, early adopter of the mullet

But does he also admire his deportation of the Indians, a policy that led to something very close to genocide? His disdain for powers delegated by the constitution to branches other than the executive? His ability to rally “the people” to consolidate his personal power? His cruel treatment of his own black African slaves? His execution of volunteers for questionable loyalty? His shadow cabinet? His lies?

A victory speech from Donald Trump, who takes the comb-over to a new level

Mr. Trump has recently discovered, and wants to let everyone else know, that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. I’m very curious to see what develops if he continues to watch the History Channel. Will he still fawn so over Jackson when he discovers he was a Democrat? Yes, Don, the Democratic Party is older than the GOP.

Where are the leaders of towering intellect and honor to guide us through this time of troubles? Where is our Henry Clay, to show us the path to a compromise we all can live within together? Where is our John C. Calhoun, to save us from the tyranny of a demagogue-smitten majority? Where is our Daniel Webster, to do battle with the Devil on our behalf? Where on earth are we headed now?

Advertisement for the Waldorf-Astoria

A Poem by Langston Hughes

“All the luxuries of private home. . . .”Now, won’t that be charming when the last flop-househas turned you down this winter?Furthermore:“It is far beyond anything hitherto attempted in the hotelworld. . . .” It cost twenty-eight million dollars. The fa-mous Oscar Tschirky is in charge of banqueting.Alexandre Gastaud is chef. It will be a distinguishedbackground for society.So when you’ve no place else to go, homeless and hungryones, choose the Waldorf as a background for your rags–(Or do you still consider the subway after midnight goodenough?)

ROOMERSTake a room at the new Waldorf, you down-and-outers–sleepers in charity’s flop-houses where God pulls along face, and you have to pray to get a bed.They serve swell board at the Waldorf-Astoria. Look at the menu, will you:

Have luncheon there this afternoon, all you jobless.Why not?Dine with some of the men and women who got rich off ofyour labor, who clip coupons with clean white fingersbecause your hands dug coal, drilled stone, sewed gar-ments, poured steel to let other people draw dividendsand live easy.(Or haven’t you had enough yet of the soup-lines and the bit-ter bread of charity?)Walk through Peacock Alley tonight before dinner, and getwarm, anyway. You’ve got nothing else to do.

–Langston Hughes

The Golf Links

The golf links lie so near the mill That almost every day The laboring children can look out And see the men at play.

–Sarah Cleghorn

Vanity working on a weak head produces every sort of mischief. –Jane Austen

Once riding in old Baltimore,
Heart-filled, head-filled with glee,
I saw a Baltimorean
Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small, And he was no whit bigger, And so I smiled, but he poked out His tongue, and called me, ‘Nigger.’

I saw the whole of Baltimore From May until December; Of all the things that happened there That’s all that I remember.

–Countee Cullen

Sometimes the smallest things speak out the loudest.

VOICE, or Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement, is an agency that President Trump proposes be established within the Department of Homeland Security. Its purpose would be to detect, monitor, and prosecute immigrants who commit crimes in the US. It is an expansion of the idea behind his recent directive that requires Attorney General to maintain a database of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. It will provide, according to Trump, “a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.”

He is right about that. It will provide a voice to white nationalists, mysogynists, xenophobics and other hate-mongers in Trump’s coalition of dispicables who have been shunted aside by what they derisively call “political correctness”, but which more respectfully, and accurately, be called simply “correctness.”

ICE descends in the darkness

This remarkable hate-based initiative, a policy with a vile constituency in search of a justification in fact, has not received the castigation it deserves. This is a tribute to the President’s ability to promote his hateful brand in the face of opposing realities. It is evidence of the destructive delusions that, through the president’s example is, eroding the moral character of our country. It is exactly this high moral character which has been the source of our strength and exceptional nature. It is what makes this country great.

Ice took Mom away

In the terse description of the purpose of VOICE, the president managed casual verbal backhands to the free media he so despises and the ill-defined “special interests” that so irk the mobs that roil his rallies. In the video of his speech to Congress, he seems genuinely confused by the scattered gasps and boos that rose from the chamber when he sprang this initiative to a joint session of Congress in his first major speech to that body.

Though they lasted only a few seconds, these same boos are the source of my hope. Like a haughty maiden whose bodice accidentally slips but is quickly restored, Congress inadvertently let its vulnerable, human side show, if only for an instant.

Dad has been taken by ICE

Make no mistake; this is a hate-based initiative, focused not on the crimes, but on pinning crimes on a pre-selected group: immigrants. (For immigrants, read Hispanics and Muslims.) How far would he get if he proposed and agency to compile crimes committed by black men, or gun owners, or Jews. This is not socioeconomic policy. It is ideological propaganda.

The issue has already been studied thoroughly. Time after time, the evidence has shown that immigrants, legal or otherwise, commit crimes at rates lower than native-born Americans do. This makes sense, since conviction for a crime invites deportation. These studies all have three inherent, fatal flaws: 1) they are science, 2) they rely on facts, and 3) they do not conform to the ideological truth that immigrants are an obstacle to America’s regaining her lost greatness.

Trump and his posse have drawn a contrary conclusion, and set about to prove it. They began by presenting anecdotal evidence in the form of victims of immigrant violence, including the tragic women who were invited to the speech to weep before the cameras. This despicable exploitation of the pain of others proves nothing, yet it seems to have won over many people to his point of view.

Now he wants an analysis of the crime rate among immigrants based on the preconceived conclusion that immigrants are a major source of crime. Unleashing whirlwinds of biases (detection, observer, and reporting, among others), all pushing hard towards xenophobic blame. He wants a second list compiled, too, of local authorities that refuse to deliver such biased data, such the so called sanctuary cities, so that they can be further ostracized, perhaps by withholding federal funds.

An Alternate Opinion

The first amendment forbids religious discrimination, the fifth amendment promises due process of law to anyone accused under the law, and the fifteenth amendment clarifies that no constitutional right can be denied or restricted to anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Taken together, these provisions render VOICE as illegal as it is hateful. Perhaps the little groan of dismay that arose from Congress when Trump proposed it reflected recognition of this constitutional reality by its sworn guardians. Perhaps it came from the shock of the casual, sweeping amorality of the proposal. Perhaps the brief glimpse by the humans in the room of the writhing hate that underlies the VOICE proposal gave way to an involuntary gasp of horror.

Whatever the reason, it doesn’t take a special investigator to tell us we should pay attention to that little sound. It is the tip of a righteous iceberg. VOICE must not happen, ever. As a country, as people, we are better than that.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name MOTHEROF EXILES. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

Fredrick Trumpf, barber, hotelier, and pimp (Grandfather of President Trump), deported from Germany for draft-dodging

Please note that both immigrant wives of Donald Trump both came from countries which, at the time of their births, were under Soviet hegemony. Despite what you may think, this proves nothing, except that beautiful women can be found around the world.

Under criminal law, assignment of blame for a commission of a serious crime requires establishing two factors: the actus rea (“guilty act”) must be accompanied, at the moment the crime is committed, by mens rea (“guilty mind”). Under common law, “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”

Mens rea is a tenebrous idea, and centuries of litigations in numerous jurisdictions around the world have only increased its vague and slippery nature. In 1957, the Model Penal Code (MPC) clarified the concept, assigning five levels of mens rea, which reflect the degree of culpability or the seriousness of the crime:

Strict liability: culpability is inherent in the act itself and mental state is irrelevant. This generally applies only to civil litigation and tort law.

Negligence: a “reasonable person” would understand that the conduct is forbidden under the attendant circumstance, and that “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that it will cause a predictable adverse outcome.

Recklessly: the actor himself knows and “consciously disregards” a substantial and unjustifiable risk may exist that the action is illegal, or will lead to a prohibited result.

Knowingly: the actor “is aware to a high degree of certainty” that his actions are inherently illegal or will lead to an illegal result; or that attendant circumstances exist that make them so.

Purposefully: the actor has the “conscious object” of committing the crime for a perceived gain, or believes or hopes that attendant circumstances exist that will advance his purpose in the face of the illegal act.

To establish mens rea, and therefor assign culpability, an accused person must be shown to be of sound mind, and one of these criteria must be met.

M’Naghten Trial, 1843

The concept of insanity as it relates to culpability is another slippery idea. In 1843 Daniel M’Naghten, deluded into believing that the Tory party wanted to assassinate him, attempted preemptively to murder Prime Minister Robert Pell. (Being crazy, he killed Pell’s private secretary by mistake.) He was acquitted by reason of his insanity.

Interest in this case led the House of Lords to ask judges across England for their thoughts on insanity and culpability under the law. The result of their reflections became the M’Naghten Rules, which prevailed throughout European and American law for the next century or so, and persist in some form to this day. In part, the judges wrote:

“Jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proven to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.”

The MPC defines it thus:

“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or deficit, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”

There is a lot of wiggle room still, but to establish insanity and demolish mens rea, five issues have to be considered:

There is a presumption of sanity. The burden to prove insanity lies with the defense,

There must be a mental disease or defect,

There must be an inability to appreciate that the conduct is wrong, and

The mental disease must be the cause of the failure to recognize that wrongness.

All these conditions must have been present when the act was committed.

It is important to remember that the concept of mens rea and the M’Naghten rules are intended to evaluate mental states as they may contribute to the commission of a specific crime. They are not meant to evaluate ethical or moral conduct itself, the ethical performance of elected officials who hold positions of public trust, or the abstract contemplation of good or evil. By themselves, they do not establish guilt or innocence.

Competency is another factor that may be affected by insanity, but mens rea and the M’Naghten rules do not apply to evaluation of competency. In criminal law, competency requires us to be able to understand the charges against us, and to participate in our own defense; without these abilities, we are held incompetent to stand trial The rules do not require that we be sane. A hearing separate from the guilt phase is held to determine our competency.

In the real world, there are multiple spheres of competence: competent to manage our own affairs, competent to practice a profession, competent to be president of the United States. These all require varying levels of knowledge, judgement, and skill, but not necessarily sanity. Different criteria apply to each domain. If a mental defect interferes with our ability to care for ourselves, or perform our jobs, or execute the duties of a public office, different criteria apply. In the case of our failure to care for ourselves, guardianship statutes are used to protect us. In the case of incompetence at work, we can be fired. Every state has boards that license and monitor the competence of various professionals. In the case of incompetence in elected public office, often our main resource is to wait out the term and then elect someone else.

For most public offices, there are also recall and impeachment laws to protect us against active political malfeasance rather than incompetence. Such laws require a wrongful act before they can be invoked. To impeach a president, for instance, the Constitution requires that he have committed “high crimes or misdemeanors” during his time in office. With culpability at issue, the principles of mens rea, and the M’Naghten rules, come into play. Ironically, a president with mental defect who did not appreciate that his actions were heinous when he did them might, in principle, not be impeachable. Because of the presumption of sanity, for a president to succeed in this defense and remain in office he would have to prove his own insanity under the M’Naghten principles.

The bucks never stop!

In the case of the President, whether his insanity makes him incompetent to serve in the office becomes a serious question. The 25th Amendment deals with the succession if the sitting President is unable to continue serving. Section 4 deals with the possibility that the President becomes incompetent. It reads:

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

In theory at least, a president could survive an impeachment trial by proving he was insane, but that alone would not interfere with his continuing to hold the office, since competency and insanity are determined by different means. Insanity alone is not an automatic disqualifier for a president.

To remove the president in such a bizarre circumstance, the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) would have to prove, at a separate hearing with the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, that that his insanity rendered the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The president could resume power simply by declaring himself to be competent. If the VP and Cabinet reassert their claim, then Congress decides the issue by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Imagine the turmoil during the month it would take this to play out, and who is in charge during that time? Let us hope we never find out.

Before you dismiss this scenario as some sort of wildly speculative political science fiction, consider what you already know about what actually goes on in Washington today. It appears to be populated by humanoid beings who appear superficially terrestrial, but who strangely lack joy, empathy, and other human qualities. Conscience and common sense have both been supplanted by ideology and an uncanny sense for ferreting out money. Like computers, the output of these beings, both individually as talking heads and collectively as creators of law, has an oddly structured, repetitive quality much like the output of digital programming. In tone and content this material ( both campaign rhetoric and new law) seems to be conflated statute and scripture, retrieved from storage in a cloud, and interpreted with literalness that is virtually impossible to achieve outside of a CPU.

These beings store information internally in LIFO stacks, and their random-access memory is limited and slow. The President himself, and until recently the Speaker of the House as well, are a peculiar shade of orange which resembles, perhaps coincidentally, the light reflected from the surface of the planet Mars.

Today, a president declaring himself insane in order to protect his incumbency somehow no longer seems so strange.

RESIST! Has become the mantra, the battle cry, even the very name of a progressive political group in the US. It is catchy in its brevity, emphatic in its all caps and exclamation point, and apparently commanding in its forceful tone, and tempting in the face of the political atrocities now afoot in Washington DC. Yet it has one deep flaw: it is empty rhetoric, and therefor doomed to failure. Do not lose heart though. Here are hearty ideas out there that are full of promise. They can move us forward into a bright, progressive future, once we get this RESIST! thing under control.

The problem with resistance as the core of a movement is that is reactive and lacks vision. One can be angered, but hardly inspired, by such a black cloud of gloom. Consider the Tea Party. Before it was a party, it was an idea. It began with an inspired vision: lower taxes, smaller government, fewer regulations would produce a wave of new individual freedoms that would wash over America like a tidal wave. To this end, they revived tactics that the founding fathers would have admired—running candidates for local offices and mounting grass roots campaigns to put people sympathetic to their ideas in legislatures, statehouses, and congress.

To achieve the latter in the 21st century they needed the machinery of a national party. The GOP is philosophically more closely aligned to their ideas than the Democrats are, they ran their candidates as Republicans, but campaigned for them themselves, advancing a uniform vision that eventually took over the party altogether, driving moderate Republicans into the uneasy shelter of party solidarity.

Paul Ryan

John Boehner

That is how things began to unravel. The party unified behind the party, but not the ideal. With a Democratic president and only a slim majority in the Senate, they did not have to power to advance their cause. They resorted to resistance, blocking out of hand any idea that carried the taint of the Democrats. Their own ideas atrophied, or, safely protected from being enacted and actually affecting people’s lives, grew ideological and often malignant.

Mitch McConnell

Betsy deVos

Into this vacuum moved wealthy special interests, who were able to influence Republicans and Democrats alike, who both needed torrents of cash to keep their political heads above water in a world where even state and local campaigns were flooded with national (and perhaps international) money. SCOTUS’ Citizens United decision supercharges this flume of cash. Soon the only sharks who could swim in this roiled water were the richest ones.

The Koch Brothers

The vision of the early Tea Party has washed away in the flood. The rickety structure that is left is a cartoonish representation of its founders’ ideas, shot through with holes where basic principles have been eroded by political expediency at the reed for ready cash.

All this was not lost on us. Regular American folks have watched in horror as all the power and money have been decanted for the very, very few. Suddenly the proud middle class, that built the cities and won two world wars, has become “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.” The last three presidential elections voters have demanded two things first and foremost: hope, and change. Obama promised these, but despite his substantial political gifts and oratorical power, the Obama years ended in disappointment. For whatever reasons, the government in Washington was not able to deliver much of either change or hope during those years, once the economic implosion of 2008 was repaired.

A blustering yam

Voters arrived at the polls in 2016 carrying pitchforks and torches, ready to throw the bums out of both parties. The Democrats were offered Bernie Sanders, a populist firebrand who carried his Democratic Socialist credentials proudly. The Republicans had to contend with Donald Trump, whose populist embrace was broad enough to include anyone who blamed the ills that befell America on immigrants, non-whites, and the poor rather than wealthy oligarchs like himself.

Summit Conference

Bernie was a pragmatic political scientist, whose campaign was fiery but intellectual. Donald was a showman, whose campaign was fueled by Hollywood dramatics, by arousing ethnic hatreds, and by the dispersion of “alternative facts.” The Democratic Party, veterans of smoke-filled rooms and party bosses, and equipped with a formidable political machine, was able to beat back Bernie’s horde, though just barely. The Republicans, weakened by its own internal ailments and hampered by low expectations, were overrun by the Visigoths of Trump.

Now the twisted, mutant trees that grew in the poisoned soil of the federal government are beginning to bear their awful fruit. The Republicans do not see it because they nursed these very trees through the long illness that began when the Tea Party emerged from its dark chrysalis so many years ago. The Democrats do not see it because they are as starved for new ideas as the Republicans are. They are too mired in the obligations of their past to see the ideals that once made them strong, and to build those ideals into the sort of future that most Americans want. It is no surprise that the dynastic party overlords thought that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were shoo-ins at the ballot box. Nor is it a surprise that the angry American people rejected them both.

Which brings me to why it is futile to RESIST! Because:

It is empty of vision. Like dog chasing a truck, what does he do when he catches one?

It is negative. Who can sustain inspiration with such a dark and empty focus?

If not RESIST!, then what? Let me suggest a three word slogan. You may keep your all caps and exclamation marks.

First—REMOVE! If you have cancer, you get rid of it. That is job one, because it is surgically necessary, not because the tumor is hateful. There are several means to achieve this: Article 2, Amendment 25, or resignation. Impeachment is preferable, since in prohibits holding public office going forward. Pence becomes president, so the damage to Republican interests is limited.

Second—RECOVER! Restore a society where Americans can work together despite holding different faiths, cultures, and skin colors. Where diversity is celebrated, and communication and compromise are the order of the day. Where government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.

Third—REBUILD! A lot of damage has been done to our society in the name of both parties. Once we have recovered an environment in which politicians know our collective wills, but are free to think for themselves and actually lead, it will be time to roll up our sleeves and to fix it. Together.

On the Progressive side, we are graced with some political thinkers who have well-crafted programs with which to begin the discussion. Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialism is a complete political structure in itself. As an experienced politician who has affected great change from outside the system, Bernie well knows that his beautiful edifice will not be imported intact, but he does us the honor of sharing it whole, that it may help shape our thinking as build our own future.

Robert Reich has a comprehensive view of the economic implications of Progressive positions, as well as experience in the Executive Branch. Nick Hanauer has strong ideas on the effects of paying workers a wage based on workers’ and society’s needs, rather than narrow stockholder imperatives, as well as entrepreneurial experience. Elizabeth Warren has knows how to use the regulatory powers of government to balance the needs of consumers and purveyors of credit, as well as experience in both the executive and legislative branches. There are many other examples. Positive, substantive programs and hard work, rather than catchy slogans, will make America great again.

For rebuilding, ideas are necessary but not sufficient. You’ve got a program, now you’ve got to make it policy. When it comes to tactics, the Tea Party got a good deal of it right. As Tip O’Neill is often quoted (though AP Washington bureau chief Byron Price had used the phrase before him): all politics is local politics. Voters are more comfortable electing new ideas to the board of selectmen or city council. As these people go on to legislatures and state houses, the new idea becomes entrenched. By the time your people burst into national prominence, people are already comfortable with your ideas.

Election reform is essential. Local elections must be locally funded and directed by local people. Gerrymandering in favor of incumbents must be eliminated. An antidote must be found for the spreading toxin of dark money in politics. Poll taxes and voter ID laws must not keep selected voters away from the ballot box. Perhaps a nonpartisan Elections Commission could monitor elections at all levels for interference and fraud, though this path is fraught with peril—there must be iron assurance that such a commission is absolutely free of party influence. At some point, the Electoral College needs to be reexamined.

So there you have it—REMOVE! RECOVER! REBUILD! A wonderful future is there for us, with a lot of spirit and hard work. Let’s get started!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord; He’s been drinking from the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the awful lightning of his oft recanted word: His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that can never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment-seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer with a very nasty tweet! The country marches on on.

He is grabbing at the pussies that are powerless to fight. ‘Cuz he’s a star they let him and he thinks that makes it right. Nothing makes him shiver, or keeps him up at night. His fame keeps marching on.

He is rising wreathed in glory with a wink, a nudge, a wave, Shouting platitudes to wisdom, and insults to the brave. The poor shall be his footstool, and the middle class his slave. His business marches on.

Once, nearly two centuries ago, the United States had a president who rode the crest of populist fervor, and a campaign of ignominious lies and calculated, self-serving half-truths, all the way to the White House. He promised to sweep away the governing elite, whose wealth and arrogance the commoners distrusted and disliked. Before becoming president, he had made a fortune in shady real estate dealing, much of it in a foreign country. (At the time, Florida belonged to Spain.) He had suffered through a sex scandal, and showed his tendency to authoritarianism when he conquered an American city (New Orleans), declaring himself the supreme commander there even though the war had ended. Without due process, he jailed a legislator who challenged him, and then a judge who signed a writ of habeas corpus demanding that man’s release; six militiamen were executed on his orders for opposing him.

He ran a nasty campaign for president against a career political insider. Upon losing, he declared that election had been rigged by the establishment, that his loss was due not to his own failings (for in his mind he had very few of those) but to a Corrupt Bargain among the aristocrats of the East, who had stolen the election from him, the man of the people. He accused his opponent (whose father had been president previously) of nepotism, incompetence, and corruption.

Four years later, against the same opponent, he fought the nastiest campaign the country had ever seen. (This is saying a lot. In 1800 John Adams’ campaign claimed that if Jefferson won, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” Jefferson described Adams of having “a hideous hermaphroditical character.”) His zealous followers branded their opponent as a corrupt aristocrat and libertine, including the accusation that, while serving in the State Department, he had pimped American girls for the Tsar of Russia. He was himself attacked for his inexperience, impetuosity and temper. He was branded a bigamist, and the scurrilous attacks on the virtue of his wife were so relentless that she had a heart attack and died before his inauguration.

When he successfully achieved the presidency, he demanded that as victor it was his prerogative to distribute the spoils; he dismissed a slew of federal career appointees, down to the level of local postmasters, often replacing them with inexperienced men whom he could control, thus rewarding them for their personal fealty to him. His “parlor” cabinet, appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate but intended mainly as window dressing, was made impotent by infighting and factional disputes, as many thought he had planned from the beginning. He turned instead to an unofficial “kitchen” cabinet composed of family and cronies, whose counsel, without congressional approval or oversight, was more closely heeded.

He demolished the federal banking system that had been initiated by Alexander Hamilton, leaving finance in wealthy, private hands, unfettered by regulation. This contributed to a storm of rash speculation by banks and financiers that eventually led to the worst depression the country had ever seen. He rounded up over 125,000 people, based solely on their race, and expelled them from the country; thousands died on the forced march he ordered (The Trail of Tears) to the semi-barren settlements he reserved for them in the arid west. He opposed any federal involvement in scientific research and exploration.

He came to office with no experience in international statesmanship. He based his foreign policy on his prowess, gained during his years in real estate, as a dealmaker. His state department successfully made trade agreements with Russia, Spain, Turkey, Great Britain, and Siam. Under the treaty of Great Britain, American trade was reopened in the West Indies. As a result, American exports increased 75% while imports increased 250%.

He railed against the Electoral College as an elitist obstacle to popular governance, and pushed term limits for elected office to forestall the development of a persistent governing class. Without the support of Congress, he never got the constitutional amendments required to make these changes happen, so he railed against congress as well.

He was a fantastic egoist. His fiery temper was well known, and he often used it to his personal or political advantage. He could be petulant and childish. A contemporary wrote of him:

…the President belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the clear and precise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts a construction upon that act favorable to the government of the Union; far from standing forth as the champion of centralization, [he] is the agent of the state jealousies; and he was placed in his lofty station by the passions that are most opposed to the central government. It is by perpetually flattering these passions that he maintains his station and his popularity. [He] is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands–say, rather, anticipates and forestalls them. (…)

[He] stoops to gain the favor of the majority; but when he feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the pursuit of the objects which the community approves or of those which it does not regard with jealousy. Supported by a power that his predecessors never had, he tramples on his personal enemies, whenever they cross his path, with a facility without example; he takes upon himself the responsibility of measures that no one before him would have ventured to attempt. He even treats the national representatives with a disdain approaching to insult; he puts his veto on the laws of Congress and frequently neglects even to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes treats his master roughly. (Alexis deTocqueville-Democracy in America,1835)

In other words, federal power should be curtailed in order to expand individual power—specifically his own individual power.

The changes wrought (some would say the damage done) during Andrew Jackson’s eight years in power have never been fully undone. One thing is clear: had Jackson never been elected president, the United States would be a quite different country than it is today. We probably would have arrived at plutocracy sooner. The genocide of aboriginal peoples may have been a bit less cruel (if such a thing is possible). The Great Emancipation might have come later. Since that time the jealousy and animus between the executive and legislative branches that so divides America today have waxed and waned, but not ever gone away. Some would call this a force for good, helping to contain the overall power of the federal government.

Other presidents who have consolidated executive power (Lincoln and both Roosevelts come to mind) have done so in times of crisis for the sake of the republic, and realized little personal gain. Jackson was different. He was his own crisis, and seemed to relish power for its own sake.

Donald Trump is different, too. Fasten your seat belt. If history is any guide at all, we are in for a rough ride ahead. And this time there are nuclear arsenals involved.

************

DISCLAIMER: In this age of fungible history and designer facts. I feel compelled to confess that. while I have not made anything up, I have selected and ordered (spun) the facts here in a manner that emphasizes the ways, as I see them, that Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump are similar. The result is a somewhat Orwellian take on both of them. In many ways they were quite different men. While Jackson was a hero of the War of 1812, Donald Trump avoided military service in Viet Nam through a series of student and medical draft deferments. While Jackson was a wealthy man, in those days before the full bloom of the Industrial Revolution there was nothing even analogous to a tycoon or a billionaire, especially in agrarian Tennessee where Jackson lived. Still, both men were blustery and ego-driven. They both had the political insight to see the power that could be marshaled by arousing the passions of common classes to which they did not themselves belong. Protean as a thunderhead and unpredictable as a volcano, each man was the spit and image of the other, and his polar opposite as well.